Osborne v. Perkins

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
Citation112 F. 127
Docket Number397.
PartiesOSBORNE v. PERKINS.
Decision Date11 November 1901

James Hamilton, for appellant.

J Arthur Wainwright, for appellee.

Before COLT, Circuit Judge, and WEBB and ALDRICH, District Judges.

ALDRICH District Judge.

This is an appeal from a decree of the district court wherein the discharge of the bankrupt was refused, and raises the question of fact presented by the assignment of errors. The assignment of errors presents no question of law. The discharge was refused upon findings of fact, and upon the ground that the bankrupt knowingly and fraudulently concealed property from the trustee.

This issue of fact was raised before the referee, and the objections to the discharge were heard by the district court October 4, 1899, and the discharge was refused upon the ground that the omission of property of value from the schedule was intentional. Upon a subsequent rehearing upon evidence and argument, the judge again refused the discharge upon the ground that the bankrupt had knowingly and fraudulently concealed his property.

Where the issue is fraud, the essential question is peculiarly one of fact to be decided by the tribunal of first instance upon its conviction one way or the other after seeing the witnesses and hearing the evidence. To such a situation the familiar rule applies that the finding below, whether through a verdict or through a decision by a judge or a chancellor will not be disturbed unless the appellate court can clearly see that it is opposed to the weight of evidence, or, as otherwise stated, unless plain and manifest error appears. This record does not warrant such a conclusion. Indeed, it is clear that the court below properly refused the discharge. The bankrupt, upon his own statement, being advised that he should not omit property of value, did omit property of value, while he scheduled various alleged properties which were of no value. Such conduct at once makes a strong case of wrongdoing, and, unless satisfactorily explained, would be quite conclusive against the bankrupt upon the issue of fraud. Such explanation was not made in this case, and the court was therefore right in refusing the discharge.

Another question was first made upon argument here, namely, that the charge of wrongdoing was not stated with sufficient particularly in the creditor's objections. If that question were before us, it would quite likely become a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Hutchinson v. Otis, Wilcox & Co.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • 4 Septiembre 1902
    ...decree of the District Court, refusing a discharge to the bankrupt, Osborne, in which case, also, we affirmed the order of the court below. 112 F. 127. In the party now claiming an appeal was the actor in this court. With reference to the first case, it is so clear that the provision in sec......
  • In re Merritt
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • 22 Octubre 1928
    ...134 F. 229, 232; In re Lord (D. C.) 22 F.(2d) 301; Seigel v. Cartel (C. C. A.) 164 F. 691; In re Leslie (D. C.) 119 F. 406; Osborne v. Perkins (C. C. A.) 112 F. 127; Poff v. Adams (C. C. A.) 226 F. We think that the evidence presented in the record does not justify a reversal of the judgmen......
  • Poff v. Adams, Payne & Gleaves, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • 15 Septiembre 1915
    ...F. 286, 62 C.C.A. 218; In re Schulman, 177 F. 191, 101 C.C.A. 361; In re Buckingham v. Estes, 128 F. 584, 63 C.C.A. 20; Osborne v. Perkins, 112 F. 127, 50 C.C.A. 158. decision depends upon the view to be taken of transactions between Poff, the bankrupt, and W. C. Horton, one of his creditor......
  • In re Silverstein
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • 4 Noviembre 1929
    ...134 F. 229, 232; In re Lord (D. C.) 22 F.(2d) 301; Seigel v. Cartel (C. C. A.) 164 F. 691; In re Leslie (D. C.) 119 F. 406; Osborne v. Perkins (C. C. A.) 112 F. 127; Poff v. Adams, Payne & Gleaves (C. C. A.) 226 F. The appellant points out that after the trial before the special master, whi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT